Can Communism Work?

 A sentiment which is common in current political discourse is that “communism has failed every time that it has been tried.” This certainly seems like an accurate assessment given the available historical examples, but does present the question of whether this is necessarily so. Is communism incapable of succeeding, or is it that is has simply been vexed by a run of bad luck?

The weaknesses of communism are contained in its assumption regarding “who” and “what.” The assumption, and a practical matter, the fallacy is that if you define the what the who is immaterial. This is exactly the opposite of the way the world works in practice, and the reason why communism has failed every time it has been tried.

The assumption behind communism, as well as any political doctrine that tends to result in totalitarianism, is that the details of daily life, regardless if those details are economic, political, social, legal, educational, etc., can be managed. This is the theoretical appeal of communism: it is possible to imagine any type of Utopian society, assuming that the right type of people can be found to manage it. This ideal fails in the real world for two reasons: 1) the process by which the leaders are selected in such societies favor the selection of those most adept at political intrigue rather than producing social harmony, and 2) the varied details of human life in any society are too diverse and idiosyncratic to be managed by anyone.

Mao Tse Tung was adept at acquiring power but relatively inept at using that power to produce desirable social progress. The same observations can be made of Castro, Stalin, Pol Pot, Tito, etc. Communism selects out “leaders” who have the capacity to aggregate and hold power, regardless of their ability to do anything else. As a practical matter, communism is a doctrine that provides an advantage for promoting those who are most effective at exploiting the theoretical benefits of totalitarianism, and whose political skills and ruthlessness are most useful. This is why communism fails, and will fail, every time it is tried. There may be selfless communists, who honestly believe that they are committed to social and economic justice, and who will not seek personal wealth, or dachas, etc. They will eventually , and inevitably, be supplanted by those who will, because the implementation of communism requires as a practical matter, a measure of totalitarian coercion. This is a huge advantage to those with totalitarian ambitions.

Even if it were the case that an altruistic communist, not prone to totalitarian excess, were to ascend to prominence in a communist regime, he would eventually have to confront the realities of human nature that make totalitarianism necessary in communist ideology. Furthermore, sustaining a communist regime, even if such were a practical possibility, would require a succession of selfless leaders, which is itself a practical impossibility.

Communism has failed every time that has been tried simply because communism requires a set of conditions that are not to be found in the real world, and which cannot be imposed by force.